Will Young Catholic Women Give Natural Family Planning A New Look ? ( Look at Washington Post Article )

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle […]. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”



Chesterton

Unlike many I am pretty bullish on the future second glance the Catholic , and until the 30's the default Protestant , view of birth control will have. There has been some whispers even that what Paul the VI and other Pope's warned about as to effects of artifical birth control seem now very self evident.

There is no doubt the the adovcates of the pill can point out to certain benefits of the "pill". However as they lecture on that it seems taboo to talk about the ill effects. Effects that might in many people's view negate whatever good there is for the indivdual woman, the domestic Church AKA the family , and society as a whole.

However  the "Fence" or the Catholic teaching on this matters needs some updating at least as to appearance and argument. That is one reason I was glad to see a Washington Post article up today on this.

The Anchoress has the link at  Old Contraception Talk Given Youthful Jolt


Also the religious journalism watchdogs  at Get Religion have a post on it at Sexy makeover for natural family planning .


I liked the articles , and I follow a good many of these Catholic women on the social media already. However one defect of the article was the "male" side of the equation. They are all sort of critical to the process. There is more to their role than just tell me when baby. So that part of the dynmaic needs to be explored too. Still a nice article.

Understanding Various Same Sex Unions Scriptural and Theological Camps ( Part 1 )

William Witt has produced a wonder post at The Hermeneutics of Same-Sex Practice: A Summary and Evaluation. I think it is a good thing to print out. There is also a PDF link.

The argument for same sex marriage, Same sex unions, and related matters does not operate in isolation from other teachings of the Church. It does not operate in isolation from how we engage scripture. I have always said HOW ONE GETS there is just as important as the underlying issue. If these hermeneutics are accepted as to same sex unions what else will be affected?

Therefore I think when engaging a person on this issue it's important to realize what viewpoint or "camp" they are in as to how they advance their argument. Mr Witt article here is rather long. SO I am dividing up hitting some bullet points he made today as to the "camps" . I will do another post on how he using Scripture, The Church Fathers, and others combats these claims.

This article is from an Anglican viewpoint , but most can applied to Catholic circles. I have made some comments in blue below .

The Camps:

Selectivism Camp -
-most prevalent position

-recognizes that Scripture condemns same-sex sexual activity , but that Scripture is wrong
-Subcamps in selectivism range from straightforward in their rejection of what Scripture teaches to a more nunaced stand.

- As to Radical Selectivism we see Michael Hopkins, former President of Integrity (a gay rights advocacy group in The Episcopal Church), stated: “The Bible and the Church have both been wrong. The Holy Spirit is teaching this to us.

-In the back ground is Feminist Theology. Advocates say that one must approach Scripture with a ‟hermeneutic of suspicion.”

-“[t]he Church has authority to set aside or ignore its own decisions, even when these decisions are recorded in Scripture, and based upon other Scriptures to which divine mandate is attached. It does this by deciding that the divine mandate was temporary, allowing the law to lapse through disuse, or by interpreting the law in a new light.”


-On the other hand nuanced Selectivism is distinguished by a more restrained rhetoric rather than a difference of methodological approach.

-Moderate Selectivism suggests that the Bible should be seen as a “foundational document” or a “religious classic” rather than a normative authority. The Bible sets the basic agenda for Christianity because of its relation to Christian origins. It asks the basic questions, and should be respected as a “serious statement” about what it means to be Christian. Nonetheless, the contemporary Christian may well find him- or herself in disagreement with biblical texts.

-It is acknowledged that certain biblical materials are accepted as authoritative and others are not because they “fit the experience” of the one doing the selecting.

-Selectivist has two step approach

(1) an identification of elements in the biblical text that can no longer be considered authoritative ( looking at cultural background and social values of the time during which it was written .

(2) countervailing positive themes that compensate for these undesirable limitations found in Scripture, and it is these themes that provide the legitimation for the Church’s approval of same-sex activity. Often this is the liberation from oppressive structures as being an important part of the biblical message.

-differences among Selectivists both as to what needs to be dispensed with in Scripture, and also as to which parts of the biblical message still have contemporary relevance

(1) Bishop Spong approach- writes that the heart of the Bible.... comes down to us wrapped in two thousand years of cultural baggage. To recover this experience for ourselves, we must get past the cultural baggage. Once we get past the baggage, we find an experience of love and self-acceptance—the courage to be one’s true self.

(2) A more sociological Selectivism suggests that there is a contrast between two ethics in the Bible, a holiness/purity ethic and a compassion/love ethic. Jesus rejected this purity ethic to advocate an ethic of love and compassion. Proscriptions against homosexual activity are part of a purity ethic, and have been superseded by this ethic of love.

Revisionist Camp -

- tries to revise the traditional interpretation of Scripture concerning homosexual activity

- What was condemned by the writers of Scripture was either exploitative same-sex activity, pederasty, or cult prostitution.

-two contradictory arguments appear

(1) biblical writers knew nothing about long-term committed same-sex relationships, and so could not have condemned them. Biblical writers were aware were the ritual homosexual prostitution characteristic of biblical Israel’s Canaanite contemporaries or the exploitative pederastic practices of pagan Hellenism.

(2) Conversely,biblical writers did know about long-term committed same-sex relationships, and did not condemn them. For example, Naomi and Ruth. Jonathan and David, Jesus and the disciple.

-A variation on this argument tries to split the difference between these two claims about the biblical writers’ knowledge of homosexuality

-Revisionist hermeneutic emphasizes that only a handful of biblical texts speak negatively about same-sex activity, and claims that even these have been misunderstood. The proscriptions in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 condemn not committed loving same-sex activity, but perhaps homosexual cultic prostitution.

-Both the Selectivist and Revisionist approaches have serious problems

(1) first approach is politically untenable, and the second exegetically so. No church that hopes to keep the average worshiper in the pew can do so by embracing the arguments either that the Bible is a document of oppression or that it cannot be trusted in its moral assertions.

(2) The second approach fails as well because the vast majority of biblical scholars, both historically and recently, concede that the plain-sense reading of the biblical texts prohibits homosexual activity, and that Scripture endorses only one permissible model for sexual activity: exclusive life-long commitment within heterosexual marriage.

Which leads us a third and newer Camp

Ecclesial Dispensation-

-the Scriptures prohibit same-sex activity, nonetheless, the Church is free not to be bound by these proscriptions in the same way that it has recognized that it is not bound by other prohibitions in the Bible .

-Most superficial example is the “shellfish” argument . Bible prohibits the eating of shellfish or the wearing of mixed-weave fabrics, or some other prohibition usually found somewhere in the Mosaic law. Yet we all eat shellfish and wear mixed-blend clothing. Prohibition of homosexual activity, it is implied, falls into the same category as prohibition of eating seafood or wearing wool-polyester blends.

-A more sophisticated version of this third approach can be found in the New York Episcopal Diocese’s “Let the Reader Understand,”.appeal to the Biblical precedent found in Jesus’ setting aside the dietary laws of the Old Testament, and in the New Testament church’s decision to admit Gentiles into fellowship.

-conclusion drawn by the document is that the Church has the authority to set aside either positive biblical commandments or negative prohibitions that it considers no longer binding. In the document’s own words: “[I]t is insufficient simply to condemn those things that are condemned somewhere in Scripture, or to approve those things that are somewhere approved . . . [T]he Church has come to oppose or forbid acts mandated or tolerated in Scripture, and to allow acts or behaviors forbidden there.

the local (national) church that has the right to make these decisions about which biblical prohibitions are binding or may be set aside, claiming for a local church the authority to set aside the moral teaching of the universal Church, and the Scriptures.

-This hermeneutic creates a fundamental confusion by its ambiguous use of the word “Church.” Is it :

(1) Is the “Church” the apostolic church that wrote the Scriptures, the church of the second century that recognized the canon of Scripture along with the Rule of Faith, the historic episcopate, and the sacraments as marks of identity that distinguished Catholic Christians from gnostic heretics, the church of the ecumenical councils that drew up the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian formulation.....

or

(2) twenty-first century American Episcopal Church as a denomination? ( this argument of "Local Options "also comes up among some Catholics and other Protestants).

- If the “Church” is the church that understood Jesus to have set aside the dietary portions of the Old Testament law, then the “Church” must refer to the church of the apostles, since the reference is to Mark’s gospel (Mark 7:19).

- In the conclusion, however, “Church” clearly means the Episcopal Church as a local denomination. This last use is particularly idiosyncratic. In what sense can a small American denomination of less than 2 million members, and less than a million regular communicants, think of itself as “the Church”? Even as the “national church” in a country with numerous denominations that far outnumber the Episcopal Church in size? Why would the Episcopal Church be the “national church” and not the Roman Catholics or the Southern Baptists? ( Again we could perhaps see this dynamic in Catholic circles developing ) .

-The failure to distinguish between the apostolic church and the post-apostolic church is a genuine concern here.

-In the very act of acknowledging a canon, the second-century church placed itself under the Rule (canon) of the apostolic witness. The bishops (who recognized the canon) are successors to the apostles, but they are not themselves apostles. In recognizing the canon of Scripture, the Church “interprets” Scripture by submitting to its authority. It does not place itself over Scripture, or decide which portions of Scripture it will consider authoritative.

-the “Church” that discerned in Jesus’ statement recorded in Mk 7:19 that the dietary laws of the OT were no longer binding was the apostolic church that wrote the canonical Scriptures, not the post-apostolic church that received the canon.

-LTR’s approach makes a fundamental error in failing to distinguish between the apostolic and post-apostolic church, between the church that created the canon of Scripture, and the church that receives the canon of Scripture.

-hermeneutic fails to distinguish properly between the Catholic (or universal Church) and the local or national church, and in so doing, contradicts basic principles of Anglican theology. ( Again Double Ditto for Catholic )

-cannot help but wonder where this principle could lead. Would the local church be free to set aside doctrinal principles as well, for example, the Nicene affirmation that the Son is homoousios with the Father? Could a national church decide to add contemporary materials to the canon? Or omit material from the canon that did not conform to contemporary sensibilities?

Non-biblical Arguments Camps -

-Rather than addressing the biblical prohibitions, or reinterpreting them, these approaches base their case on some theological principle or argument arrived at completely independently of what the Bible actually says about the morality of sexuality, whether heterosexual or homosexual

- “ Enthusiast.” subcamp . The claim here is that God is doing a new thing in the Church. The Holy Spirit is leading the Church into a new understanding of what it means to be the Church. It is claimed that the inclusion of practicing homosexuals in the Church is parallel to Gentile inclusion in the early church in which at first only Jews had been members. ( In application this seems to be tied in often with the Ecclesial Dispensation discussed above often )

- Parallel to the above argument is an appeal to” inclusivity.” It is suggested that for the Church to forbid same-sex sexual activity is to deny the baptismal rights of homosexuals.

-appeal is often rooted in the rhetoric of civil rights, coupled with it is a characterization of the disagreement over church approval of same-sex sexual activity as a primarily political issue

-Denial of sexual diversity is the same kind of irrational prejudice that lies behind xenophobia or racism—an example of uncharitable intolerance.

-Implicit in the notion of same-sex orientation is what is sometimes called the “Politics of Identity.” People are said to derive their sense of worth and their moral standing from the groups with which they primarily identify—groupings of class, race, sex (male or female). Thus only those who know themselves to be homosexual can make moral judgments about the morality of same-sex activity.

-Those of homosexual orientation do not choose to be that way, and it is cruel and unjust to demand that they embrace celibacy as the only alternative to engaging in same-sex activity. The implicit assumption here is that all people have an inherent right to sexual fulfillment.

(Part II of this post on evaluating the claims of these camps and responses later )

Rick Perry Give Us Opportunity To Explore the Galileo Myth ( By A Non Catholic )

If you watched the GOP debate last night we saw Rick Perry mention Galileo in a not very coherent way.

Joe Carter, a non Catholic, uses this as an opportunity to explore the "myth" that we often hear at The Myth of Galileo: A Story With a (Mostly) Valuable Lesson for Today

A Massive Response to Lisa Miller and Newsweek On Gay Relationships and Scripture

Lots happened while I was ill.

It appears someone has taken time of respond to the the horrid Lisa Miller piece I posted a few weeks ago.

See via Titus One Nine the piece More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek Against Scripture and Jesus.

Now what I like about this piece are the links he provides to past pieces he has done. It is really a goldmine that about answers every pro argument for Christian gay marriage put forward.

For instance I would very much read this piece he links which he links- response to Kristof, “‘God and Sex’ or ‘Pants on Fire’?”,

This is all a pretty massive tome and all his links are worth downloading an reading upon for further study and when Christians are called upon to answer this.

Apologetics , Atheists ,and Umberto Eco

First Things has a interesting column up. Of course it talks about Umberto Eco that is interesting himself. See The Atheist Gives Us Nothing

I was struck by the very last line of that piece.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Issues Note on Pope's Condom Remarks

Father Z has the text up here at Cong. for Doctrine of the Faith issues a note: On the trivilization of sexuality – Regarding certain interpretations of “Light of the World”

N .T. Wright Sets Off Debate Again With Comments on Justification At 2010 ETS Conference

Well this seems rather important. The ETS conference is one of those big events and I was not aware he was going to be there. Denny Burke has a post on this and if you go to the commentsWright engages even more.

SEE N.T. Wright on Justification at ETS

He now has a follow up post at Wrong about Wright?

Blunt and Helpful Catholic Talk On "Youthful Pasions"

Jimmy Akins has a good piece on something that strangely came up in the Delaware Senate race of all places.

Great Series of Posts On Catholics And Evolution!!

I have to say that the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. website and their blog is one the best for a Diocese in the country. Always great articles. They are doing a good series on Catholic and evolution

When the average Catholic opens their mouth on the topic of evolution in front of others , I wish I could turn back time and turn the conversation in a other direction. Often what comes out is very wrong and very simplistic.

As I said this is a very good series of post shaping up. See Can a Catholic Accept Evolutionary Theory Uncritically? and The Problem of Polygenism in Accepting the Theory of Evolution.

Austin Catholic Makes Cartoon Where A Catholic and Protestant Debate Justification!! (Great)

A Protestant Seeks to Educate a Catholic on Justification In the comments we learn this is the result of this Catholic blogger
St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train from Austin Texas.

On another note I am going to use this cartoon technology to do a LSU fan Parody.

Christopher Hitchens Comes To Alabama

Amy Welborn has a good post on the Christopher Hitchens visit and debate in Birmingham Alabama. See Pity The Neanderthals!

I have never saw him person but it appears it was similar to other visits he has made down South. As Amy points out the pro Hitchens folks usually outnumber the Christians even in the deep South. That was similar to what I read about his visits to Mississippi. Amy makes the point that since is the celebrity atheist that makes sense.

Here are just a few things that caught my eye. First this made me laugh:
It was pretty entertaining, in an awkward way, to watch the Super Friendly Southern Atheists who were so happy to see Hitchens come around the table to have their pictures taken , fling their arms around him without asking him if it was okay, give him big old hugs, and put their faces right next to his. His expression was so pained – and I don’t think it was the cancer.

Well that is the South atheist or Christian I guess.

I think she sums up what is lacking in one sentence in these debates:

It wasn’t Ratzinger/Habermas, that’s for sure.

Sad but true. However did the European public pick up on the lessons from that experience? Not sure.

As to one of her major complaints:
My basic impression of Hitchens in regard to religion is that for whatever reason, even though he debates and debates and scribbles, in the end, he refuses to seriously engage theism. He has his points, mostly historical and social, to which he returns again and again, but he doesn’t address the origins or persistence of the spiritual impulse in humanity, he doesn’t address the question of meaning or transcendence. From what I have read and now heard, what Hitchens has to say about religion is not that much different from one of my 16-year old smart aleck high school students, but with a lot more historical references thrown in.

Anyway I though it was an informative overview of how I have always perceived these types of events go when Hitchens is in the mix.

The Problems Is Not There Are Not Rational Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

But as I said in the comments at Vox Nova and their piece The Difficult Position of Same-Sex Marriage Opponents:

The problem is not there are no rational argument against Same Sex Marriage. The problem is no one has been able to figure out how to make those arguments fit into a thirty second soundbite in a five minute segment of a cable talking head TV show. (slightly edited for misspelling )

It was nice that Jeff commented and he has a nice PDF file showing some of those arguments here .

The Catholic Faith Seen in the Ancient Didache

The Archdiocese of Washington has such a good website and blog. Check out this good piece Ancient Witnesses to The Catholic Faith: The Didache

I can recall when I was not Catholic and reading the Didache. My first reaction was why I had never heard of this document in Sunday school.

Why Do Baptists ,Evangelicals and Pentecostals Have Altars and Altar Calls?

David Armstrong brings up a interesting point. I recalled thinking about this once when I was Baptist Church years ago for eedding but then I guess forgot to follow it up.

See Thoughts on the Inconsistent Protestant "Quasi-Catholic" Use of the Terminology of "Altar" / The Sacrifice of the Mass

Of course there might be some theology behind this for them but the Baptists he quotes seem to think this might be some just hangover from their Catholic history.

However what about Calvin and his influence? Do Presbyterians call that place in the front area of the Church an Altar? Hmm I don't know. Never paid attention during the times I was at a Presbyterian Church.

Every Catholic Should Know the Following Before Being Confirmed

In fact I would say to obtain a diploma from a Catholic School one should have to score 90 percent on a test that had the following!!

Great lists here at

Lists Every Catholic Should be Familiar With

What Does A Catholic Have To Believe About Predestination

This is an area where there are certain defined truths and also where a Catholic can have some differing views. I thought Aggie Catholic had a excellent post on this here

Update see my post Who Dat Going Save the Gulf - NEW ORLEANS SAINTS DO THEIR PART (VID , ARTICLES , PICS)

Jesuit writer James Martin Tired Of the Attack On Celibacy "Crap"

Oh this is Classic!!! The Deacon Bench has the link at Stereotyping celibacy

Looking at Catholic Scandals Through the History of Israel

"The Lord reveals to you that he will establish a house for you. And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. […] I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. And if he does wrong, I will correct him with the rod of men and with human chastisements. But I will not withdraw my favor from him a I withdrew it from your predecessor Saul, whom I removed from your presence. Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall stand firm forever.”

An excellent article here at BIBLE AND SIN / The Church as New Israel

Can Catholics Be Police Officers?

Can Catholics and other Christians ever lie?

This discussion comes up all the time in Catholic land and on blogs it seems. There was not too long ago for instance a pro-lifer that got some nasty stuff on what was happening in abortion clinics on tape. She got this by being deceptive and lying about who she was. There was a ton of Catholics that went NO THAT IS LYING IT IS EVIL SHE WAS WRONG!!! I have never been satisfied with that really and yet I don't have a solid answer myself about why in my gut or via tradition/scripture why I think it is more complicated.

I just saw this very good article via THIS ROCK that is helpful in some regards. See Is Lying Ever Right? (Tip of the hat to Xt3_iActiv8 and his twitter post).

Now I have suspected this is more complex than some folks wish to admit (and by complex the Church is leaving some areas for discussion here) by the fact if this is such a iron clad NO NO then there are a heck of a lot of jobs Catholics would not be able to enter.

Here are a few:
The Secret Service
The FBI
The CIA
The DEA
Undercover Reporter
Military intelligence as an agent

and of course the real biggie your average policeman!!!

Now I don't know about everyone else but I have not heard the Bishops say Catholics cannot be police officers. YET police folks must and do lie as a part of their jobs.

I very much would love to talk to a Catholic Priest that ministers to police to get his thoughts.

Police lie all the time and their lying is generally accepted. Policemen lie and deceive all the time in undercover work.

We see this in the Vice Squad when they pose as escorts or as johns. Does a Catholic police officer that puts up a FAUX escort ad in the paper in order to conduct a sting operation need to go to confession?

We see this as they go undercover to buy drugs and infiltrate gangs.

Even in interrogation of a suspect it is common and legally acceptable for a Detective to lie to the suspect. Such as " you might as well confess and make it better on yourself because your friend has already finked on you so better tell us where the body is" even though his friend has done no such thing.

So if lying or deception is ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION an intrinsic evil the Catholic Church has appeared to allow many of its flock to endanger their souls by hellfire if the above is prohibited. Talk about a act of extreme negligence!!! So I think there is a lot more up in the air than many want to admit.

Priestly Celibacy Does Not Cause Sexual Abuse

Oh goodness here we go again. See Blame it on celibacy. A Catholic Priest has good thoughts on this here at Dissent is the problem, not celibacy. I will return to his comments later at the end of this piece.

I really wonder if people are thinking of this logically. I would suspect that perhaps seeing the number of married Protestant clergy, scout leaders, teachers, and family members that are convicted of sexual abuse that it would provide a clue this is wrong headed.

If people believe in this line of logic then we should encourage the following

All teenagers need not to wait for sex till marriage because they will be so warped they will abuse children. Therefore it is paramount you encourage your college age boy at University to engage in sex outside marriage often in order to protect society

We should also make sure before we have the kids around widowed Grandma or Grandpa that the nursing home has made sure they had their "escort service" visit so they don't start groping little Jane.

Now we all know this is nonsense. Or at least I hope we all do.

Let me now bring in the words of Justice Kennedy in a Free Speech case where he talked about something that is apparent to me but we all pretend does not exist. From Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

Both themes—teenage sexual activity and the sexual
abuse of children—have inspired countless literary works.
William Shakespeare created the most famous pair of teenage
lovers, one of whom is just 13 years of age. See Romeo
and Juliet, act I, sc. 2, l. 9 (“She hath not seen the change of
fourteen years”). In the drama, Shakespeare portrays the
relationship as something splendid and innocent, but not
juvenile. The work has inspired no less than 40 motion
pictures, some of which suggest that the teenagers consummated
their relationship. E. g., Romeo and Juliet (B. Luhrmann
director, 1996). Shakespeare may not have written
sexually explicit scenes for the Elizabethan audience, but
were modern directors to adopt a less conventional approach,
that fact alone would not compel the conclusion that the work
was obscene.

Contemporary movies pursue similar themes. Last year’s
Academy Awards featured the movie, Traffic, which was
nominated for Best Picture. See Predictable and Less So,
the Academy Award Contenders, N. Y. Times, Feb. 14, 2001,
p. E11. The film portrays a teenager, identified as a 16-
year-old, who becomes addicted to drugs. The viewer sees
the degradation of her addiction, which in the end leads her

to a filthy room to trade sex for drugs. The year before,
American Beauty won the Academy Award for Best Picture.
See “American Beauty” Tops the Oscars, N. Y. Times, Mar.
27, 2000, p. E1. In the course of the movie, a teenage girl
engages in sexual relations with her teenage boyfriend, and
another yields herself to the gratification of a middle-aged
man. The film also contains a scene where, although the
movie audience understands the act is not taking place, one
character believes he is watching a teenage boy performing
a sexual act on an older man.

Our society, like other cultures, has empathy and enduring
fascination with the lives and destinies of the young. Art
and literature express the vital interest we all have in the
formative years we ourselves once knew, when wounds can
be so grievous, disappointment so profound, and mistaken
choices so tragic, but when moral acts and self-fulfillment
are still in reach. Whether or not the films we mention
violate the CPPA, they explore themes within the wide
sweep of the statute’s prohibitions.

Now what is Justice Kennedy trying to get out here. I think he tells it like it is . We are all attracted to youth and even the sexual element of it. Many average healthy red blooded American males like looking at College cheerleaders. This attraction did not come magically in being when the cheerleader turned the age of 18.

Now let me be clear I think the way that teens are made sexual objects today is bad. I am not advocating that having affairs with 16 year old people is good. However we seem to be contradictory on this.

We promote the sexual component of youth in a million ways each day but yet our laws have gone in the opposite direction. If you look at the age of consent in our grandfathers days of their youth many of them would have been arrested by the Sheriff not getting married.

My many Great Grandfather who was in his Sixties was a Revolutionary War hero and who helped found the Baptist Church in Mississippi was courting a girl (who became my several Greats Grandmother) at 15 and married her on her 16th birthday. He would be called a pedophile today.

In other words it seems we have tensions between laws and biology. I am not advocating taking the age of consent to 15 but these are just facts. We make children more and more sex objects yet we by our laws postpone adulthood. See as example age of consent laws for sex and marriage, drinking age laws, the buying of lottery tickets, and a million other laws.

In the Catholic Church the Pope is quite correct when stating the problem is not so much pedophilia but clergy having sex with teenagers. A problem for sure that I am not trying to diminish. This is one reason why the issue of seminarians that have deep seated same sex attraction comes to play. They will be naturally attracted to male youth and thus a perfect storm arises. We have a issue here of abuse of authority and some cases a lot of horny teenage guys. Some is consensual some is not because of the abuse of authority issue.

I am not downplaying the serious pedophilia problem but I do think we need to keep the categories separate to see the scope of the problem and how to deal with it.

I think we see similar dynamics played out in Protestant clergy and the secular world. None of this has to do with celibacy.

Returning to the Priest I linked he states:
Can celibacy cause sexual repression? Yes, it can. So can sexual promiscuity and monogamy. If a priest (or anyone else) finds himself sexually repressed by celibacy, this is a sure sign that celibacy is not a discipline he should be practicing. . ."better to marry than burn." If you can't practice celibacy, don't seek ordination as a Catholic priest. If you are already a Catholic priest and can't be celibate, then seek to be laicized.

If a man is sexually integrated and emotionally stable before he enters seminary, there's almost no chance that the discipline of celibacy will cause sexual repression, much less cause him to molest children or teens. Keep in mind: the number of sexual abuse cases in the public school system is significantly higher than in the Church. I doubt many public school teachers are celibate.

A good point. Again looking at the various sex crimes we see in protestant clergy, youth Ministers and in the general sexual public one might as well say MARRIAGE is the problem. Well of course that is nonsense too.

So lets say as to the case of pedophilia do people really think if these Priests that did these crimes were married they would not be doing these acts? It appears looking at the general population marriage is not the magic aspirin that one can take and cure this tendency. If it were we would not have so many sexual predators in prison.